What Would GPO and GCO Want For the GFL?

I have been thinking (trouble) if we (GPO and GCO) had our way to make the gun laws for GA (or the nation) what we wanted, what would they be?

I know we all would love to have them very simple (what is that) and to the point but there does need to be some accountability. We all drive cars and there are laws for wearing seat belts, would we agree that a class would be required for a GFL? We all know some people that may not be the best to be in possetion of a fire arm but IAW the law they can. We here on this forum have already proved that we are not the blood thirsty weapons freaks (some are questionable) like other sites, that are trying to put fear into others for our view on the truth. We are here educating ourselves to be within the law but also protecting our self and families.

Would it be possible to post a wish list of the way we would want our laws? Why can we not push a major overhaul (our laws) of the current laws, I see that the majority of the house and senate support the second amendment here in GA (according to GPO). Or is that not the best way to get to what we want, best not to open that can of worms, never know what will come of it?? One battle at a time.

I would NOT want a class or anyother training requirement added to the the requirements to get a GFL. It's a clear disadvantage to those with busy schedules and IMO just another financial barrier put in place. Taking a class does not make one an effective pistol carrier. Practice does, and there's no practical way to require people to practice.

Ideally I'm with Rammstein and mzmtg on this, no license, let's be like VT and AK.

1) No permit required for open or concealed carry of any weapon (not just guns) 18 years+ (Remember, certain people, certain weapons, and certain places would still be illegal to carry because of Fed law). No weapons banned under state law.

2) If you are an employee they can ban you from carrying, but they can not search your vehicle. Gov't jobs cannot ban you from carrying other than in the FEW remaining off-limits places.

3) Very few off-limits places (Inside of courtrooms, secure areas of airports, inside of jail/prisons, and that's about it.) The government would have to provide storage for your gun while inside, other than these places gov't cannot add anymore off-limits places. This means state and local buildings.

4) GFL still available to anyone who can posses gun under Federal law so that GA residents who want to can carry in other states. "Shall issue" status undisputed.

Are we talking about our idealized view of what should be allowed under the statues are what we should be pushing as a practical solution to the issues we currently face?

Ideal:
Open carry legal for all who qualify for a permit. Permit required for concealed carry and available for use out of state. No places off limits. Permit requirements would be similar to what we have now minus any language that gave the issuing authority any discretion.

Reality:
MP was proposing a modification a while back that I think, with some effort from GCO and GPO members and other like minded citizens, would have a chance. However, I think any such bill should include a provision to modify 16-11-126 to ensure that not possessing a GFL is "an element of the crime" to eliminate that silly "GFL is an affirmative defense" jazz.

Repeal 16-11-127 - 128 and insert the text of a new new OCGA 16-11-127:

(a)(1) A license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 authorizes the licensee to carry a concealed weapon in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A license does not authorize the licensee to use a firearm in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. No local government or state created authority may adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this section.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon without probable cause that a crime has been committed.

(b) A license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed weapon into a place where the carrying of weapons is prohibited by federal law.

(c)(1) A license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed weapon into a public building at which:

(A) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;

(B) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and

(C) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.

(2) The provisions of subsection (c)(1) shall not apply to a person in possession of a license issued pursuant to section 16-11-129 unless the public building is a courthouse, prison, or jail. The provisions of subsection (c) shall not apply to any public building unless the public building makes a provision for securely storing each person's loaded firearm or other weapon and immediately returning it upon such person's departure.

(d) Nothing in this code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.

Click to expand...

Another remedy, albeit less attractive yet potentially more discrete, would be to add GFL holders to the list defined under 16-11-130(a).

Ideal:
Open or conceled carry legal for all who qualify for a permit. Permit available mainly for use out of state. No places off limits. Permit requirements would be similar to what we have now (citizen or permanent resident, 21+, no history of mental illness, no convictions for violent crime) minus any language that gave the issuing authority any discretion (moral character, "may issue"). Temporary issued after insta-check clears and permanent sent via mail within 30 days, assuming nothing is dicovered that would disqualify the applicant.

That sound better?

Still thinking about how the ideal senario should address reciprocity with those states that require training.

I know we'll never get the ideal situation anytime soon. Vermont carry is what I consider ideal.

I am a realist. In the near-term... this session or next. I would like to see at least the "but not limited to" verbeage removed from the public gathering law. That should be an easy sell. What idiot let that one get in there anyways? That's like saying that you can get a DUI for anything, but not limited to, drinking and driving. Of course it's limited! You can't get a DUI if you weren't drunk and in a car! Hell you probably can for all I know, but it's stupid leaving it wide open like that!

I also want the "alcohol for consumption on the premises" verbeage modified. Have it similar to Florida... the area designated as such, not the whole place. This is also absolutely ridiculous. Just like the "not limited to" clause, it just sets us law-abiding citizens up for trouble. Little Havana sammich shop sells 1 kind of beer but you wouldn't know it unless you closely inspected their cooler. It's borderline fast-food... who would expect it... I ate there probably 10 times before I noticed it!

I doubt we're going to get anything really major like a total revamp of the laws, but these two will definitely help us GFL holders immensly and may be a realistic sell to our representatives. At least, these are what I write them about. Once we get these small changes and the streets don't run red with blood, then we can move onto the bigger changes.

Also, I am really pleased with the direction that GCO is taking. I don't think you can really form an organization and immediately begin making waves to revamp the state law. I want that to happen. I want changes NOW... but which is better... an organization of 100 people that immediately tries to rock the boat... or one that gets their name out there and can point to a proven track record of accomplishments. The latter carries a bit more weight IMHO.

I can't speak for GPO in any official capacity, and I doubt that my opinion represents a common view here, but this is my opinion:

1-- Get rid of the public gatherings / public buildings law. If that cannot be done without adding some training requirements to the permit, so be it. If probation officers, judges, prosecutors, etc. can carry guns in public buildings, then so should anybody else with a permit who knows the law and who is skillful enough with a gun to plug a bad guy without nailing good guys off to the side of the bad guy.

2-- Replace the "hijacking" law with one that makes it a crimial offense to attempt to hijack or commit any serious violent felony inside a public transportation terminal or vehicle. That way, just carrying a gun onto a bus won't be a felony, but carrying a gun onto a bus with a suicide note after having told your friends that you intend to kill a bunch of people and make headlines on the news WOULD be a felony (it is already, of course, but the legislature likes passing new laws, so they can duplicate this one!)

3--in the ONLY places that good citizens could properly be disarmed (the secure areas of courthouses, airports, etc.) those facilities must provide secure storage 24/7, free or for a nominal charge (a buck, maybe) at the entrance to the place that is off-limits.

4-- Honestly, and this is only me, I think that people who want to carry guns for self-defense should have to take a short little quiz to demonstrate that they know the law of self-defense, and that they cannot shoot people for trying to pry the hubcaps off their parked car. Many people DO NOT know this, but fortunately unjustified shootings are rare, and they don't involve GFL permit holders anyway.

foshizzle, you actually can be charged for DUI when not in a car. Drink a beer and ride a bike? DUI. Drink a beer and mow your grass with a riding mower? DUI. Drink a beer and ride your kid's razor scooter down the street? DUI.

gunsmoker,
I disagree with adding a training requirement. Why should I be forced to fork over money (besides the license/background check fee) to defend myself?

No quiz. No test. No compromise. A little old lady should not have to study the laws so she can carry a gun, and neither should I.

gunsmoker,
I disagree with adding a training requirement. Why should I be forced to fork over money (besides the license/background check fee) to defend myself?

No quiz. No test. No compromise. A little old lady should not have to study the laws so she can carry a gun, and neither should I.

Click to expand...

You are right & in a perfect adhearance to teh 2nd that's the way it would be however we all know it's not a perfect world & I agree with GS, I'd be willing to "give" on the testing or training issue in order to "get" the other items...

Remove the license requirement for carrying totally and remove all off-limits places except courthouses, legislature buildings, secure sections of airport, and maybe a couple of other places that I can't think of right now.

I was thinking a bit about the class option the other day, and I'm kind of torn. Requiring a class with a fee will negatively affect the poor, the busy, and people without easily accessible transportation. Remove the fee and the poor are less affected, but Mr Taxpayer is then picking up the tab. That would be a noble use of taxpayer money compared to how most of it is spent, but that's still more money being seized from the citizenry. But, requiring a class to get a permit would guarantee that a person was exposed to the law and might result in that person thinking a little more about what they're doing. That's a BIG might, though.

In the end, I'm not comfortable with the gov't having a list of people whom they know have firearms. That's the first step, every time.

You are right & in a perfect adherence to the 2nd that's the way it would be however we all know it's not a perfect world & I agree with GS, I'd be willing to "give" on the testing or training issue in order to "get" the other items...

Click to expand...

I understand that there need to be some level of compromise to get bills passed. But, at what price? Do we give a little today in hopes that that tomorrow the training criterion are not tightened? Do we trade one bad idea for another?

Do we pull a NRA and not worry about a machine gun bill being passed because we are more focused on hunting rifles and such? See where I am going with this?

The NRA thought that the only way it could get Congress to lift some of the most useless and burdensome restrictions imposed by the Gun Control Act of 1968 was to "compromise" and toss the anti-gunners a bone. So the NRA supported a law in 1986 that banned new machineguns for civilians, but that same law also granted important interstate travel protections. For the first time, Congress used the "commerce clause" power to actually stop state and local officials from interfering with the insterstate transportation of personally-owned firearms. And Congress got rid of ammunition recordkeeping requirements. Do you recall the days when you had to show photo I.D. and fill out an entry in a federal record book just to buy a box of ammo? I do.

If the NRA was right in that the only way to get what it wanted was to give something up, I think the resulting law was a net benefit for nearly everyone. And I own a machinegun! But let's face the facts-- machineguns are just expensive toys for overgrown boys. Protecting that "right" is nowhere near as important as getting rid of the infringments on the other two rights (interstate transport, buying ammo).

No offense Ram, I agree with many of your posts around here (and get good laughs from the others ) but "pro-gunners" do not have enough support, and anti-gunner have enough support to force the fact that to get something substantial we are going to have to give something at the same time.
We might be able to take 20-50 years and each session of the Congress get a tiny little concession towards our rights. But the antis are just as likely to get the same thing in their favor. I think that if you "stand by your guns" and demand 100% of your rights, while you certainly are entitled to them & deserving of them & that's what the Founding Fathers wanted you to have, you will never get them in today's world.

I think that if you "stand by your guns" and demand 100% of your rights, while you certainly are entitled to them & deserving of them & that's what the Founding Fathers wanted you to have, you will never get them in today's world.

Very very sad, but I believe true.

Click to expand...

+1

Rammstein, I agree we are due these rights. However, demanding nothing less than all of them being restored completely and immediately is a position that I believe will not result in much gain on our part. In my experience, people view this as an "extreme" position and immediately tune out the message, regardless of its validy. I think we have to be careful how we "sell" our position (as distasteful as I may find having to market our position which seem to be support by historical documents and both federal and state Constitutions ). Just look at all of the ballyhoo over HB89: we know that there is no more danger added for LEOs or citizens than is present today, but there are many (including GFL holders) who don't see that all of the dangers they point out exist now.

I see the process as being analogous to a football game: while we may be the occasional 20 yard pass, it's unlikely we'll be making a hail mary from our ten into the end zone and much more likely we'll spend our time grinding our way down the field. Our rights have been erroded over some years so I have little expectation that we can restore them overnight or in one single action.

Of course, we shouldn't necessarily be taking "baby steps" either; we also aren't going to win anything by playing it safe. If the antis aren't screaming, then we're probably doing something wrong.